Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Admission Was Fabricated
A inquiry agent integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.
Background of the Alleged Confession
Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the case.
Withdrawal and New Allegations
Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.
Burrows had previously disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.
In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.
The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”
He added that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.
Circumstances of the Initial Statement
The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.
He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated ÂŁ600 a instance for counsel.
His statement said he was told claims targeting publications were likely to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.
Present Legal Situation
The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.
The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to seek a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.
A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.
